For those who are not cjdns users or have not seen my blog which is
exclusively available in the cjdns network, I thought I'd repaste this as
it might be of some interest:

Originally posted March 2, 2013
-----------------------------------------------


Is this the best we can do?

Not one month after the tragic death of Aaron Swartz, there's another bill on
the table to "strengthen internet security" as if the CFAA under which he was
viciously prosecuted wasn't enough. The same well moneyed groups are supporting
it and the same largely volunteer organizations are heroically opposing it.
I've seen this before. CISPA, SOPA, PIPA, PatriotAct, these come immediately to
mind. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose but it's the same story every single
time.

Why?

For me, 5 years ago, the answer would have been "it's the Illuminati, they
always win, there's nothing you can do". Now I realize that no conspiracy,
however powerful it may be, could ever gain enough willing participants to
really control government. Even if the richest people in the world are truly
malignant (which I doubt), the only way such a system can sustain itself is if
most people see no other alternative than to ``play the game''.

The system sucks. I doubt anyone went to business school so they could start a
company which buys off politicians and crams stupid laws down everybody's
throat. I doubt that anyone got into politics because they wanted to sell out
the heart of America (ok maybe there are a few). I can't imagine someone
telling their third grade teacher "when I grow up, I'm going to be a lobbyist
so I can thwart grass roots attempts to bring about real change". Nobody ever
wanted to walk away from the process of electing government, god knows the
people aren't *satisfied* with government, but voting turnout is abysmal and as
a non-voter I am to blame as well. I've never met someone who really *liked*
the system we have but everybody seems to assume that somebody else does. They
are, after all, participating.

Lets imagine for a moment that *nobody* likes the system. The politicians don't
like their dreams being held hostage to lobbyists and companies, the companies
don't like forking over mountains of cash to lobbyists just to keep government
from ruining their business, the lobbyists don't like being the posterboy of
corruption. Suppose just suppose that the only reason why the system exists is
because nobody can think of a better one.

There have been efforts to reform campaign finance before but they inevitably
fail to bring about the promised change. Is it really being blocked by a
powerful and shadowy group which prefers the status quo or could it simply be a
technical failing? The human mind loves a story of intrigue. Secret oaths,
secret rituals and old money are the stuff of legend. Technical failures are
just plain boring. If you propose to ban corporate lobbying, corporations are
going to lobby against it. It has nothing to do with the status quo or the
secret knights of the round table, it's just that by making such a proposal
you've alienated a huge group of powerful people who, most importantly, are not
bent on destroying the country. What's more, even if there *is* a shadowy group
of evil industrialists conspiring to restrain human progress, if an Idea is
pure then the force of regular people, rich and poor, who are unhappy with the
system will overcome whatever effort they may make to sabotage it.

Is this the best we can do? Are we doomed to forever be paddling upstream to
block stupid law after stupid law which Washington mills out? Must we sit idly
by as our neighbors, our friends, are family and we are tried, convicted and
trucked off to prison camp while the federal prosecutor behind it all cowers in
terror at the sight of a Wall Street banker who is the very reason why the
prosecutor has such godlike powers. Should businesses have no alternative but
to bribe politicians through the morally reprehensible "campaign finance"?

Some will say "businesses have no place in policy making" and whether or not
that is true misses the point. Businesses *need* their political voices to be
heard just as people need to consume fossil fuels. Attempting to block
businesses from political activism is no more logical than banning automobiles.
If however, we can offer a cleaner, safer, more regulated approach for
businesses to communicate their needs to government then we can have an impact
just as do automobile emissions and efficiency standards.

Can we really make a difference? If we could solve only the apathy and cynicism
among the (non) voting populous, we could singlehandedly overturn every bad
idea which has ever been introduced in government. Everybody knows how they
feel about the PatriotAct or the war on drugs or SOPA. But they don't ask these
questions on a ballot, they ask "would you rather John Smith or Bill
Robertson?" and nobody has a clue which one of these people is more likely to
vote for things they want. Public services like OpenSecrets do a tremendous
amount of good by making information about campaign finance available in a
readable way. Unfortunately when one looks at campaign finance and voting
records, the information is extensive and difficult to wade through and a
likely conclusion is "they're all corrupt". While this conclusion might be
true, we can only make progress by asking "who is *less* corrupt?". Like
panning for gold, after enough iterations even this most simple approach will
eventually bear fruit.

Suppose then that we can give people the information they need. Suppose we
could link unpopular laws with the politicians who voted for them, the
companies who financed them and the currently running candidates who are
financed by those companies. Suppose we could get people excited about their
election for county commissioner by showing them what their vote means in the
context of the issues they care about. Suppose we could use risk algorithms as
perfected by insurance and credit rating industries to calculate the likelihood
that any given candidate would have voted for the PatriotAct, had they been in
2001's congress. It would be only a matter of time before no politician wanted
to take money from those who lobby for unpopular laws, before lobbyists call
the politicians they donated to, urging them not to vote for a war, lest the
lobbyists and their customers have their reputation stained as the war grows
increasingly unpopular. Everything would change, wouldn't it?

What about the electric company who can only power our lights by burning coal
and gas? If they are locked out of the political process then the people's
reasonable thirst for energy will come head to head with their valid desire for
clean air. Without giving industry a seat at the table, we force them to foil
our efforts. We sign the death warrant for our own greatest hopes when we sign
the check for our power bill. Is there a better way?

And this is where I got stuck. The path to making government accountable to the
people is, in theory, no more complex than the technology of a search engine.
Getting people excited about politics won't happen overnight but the basic
approach is laid out. How then can we give the well meaning people in industry
a voice to express their needs without resorting to practices one would expect
of a criminal racket? While the technical details still elude me, the word
which comes to mind is compromise. We cannot have clean air *and* cheap
electricity but the choice need not be binary. These decisions are made every
day by politicians who want to do great things but see no way into government
without lobbyist money and the strings attached to it. If we can make these
compromises in the open then we can negotiate in unison rather than forcing our
representatives to make these uncomfortable decisions in private.

Imagine the day when power companies help bring an end to the war on drugs in a
bill which redefines clean air rules. How, you may ask, can clean air rules
become any less strict? They probably can't but if an active voting populous
believes the current laws were thrust upon them, everything is up for rewrite.